301. Fleabytes

Comment #142944 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 8:42 am

JamesWoods: I think this catholic priest wins the human kindness award...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7292081.stm

Yes, of course. In a league of his own.

KaiserKriss: If anything, I find his chosen lifestyle of celibacy, deceit and indoctrination as abhorrent about which something should be done.

It certainly doesn't seem to have a very good effect on them, does it?

302. Fleabytes

Comment #142931 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 8:17 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7294193.stm

Ah, another Catholic Bishop brimming over with the milk of human kindness.

303. Fleabytes

Comment #142912 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:32 am

Steve: Congratulations! To Paula, and to everyone. Not just for quantity, but quality.

I'd like to echo that last bit. Getting to 5000 posts had very little to do with me, actually. I just got you started. 5000 could never have happened without everyone else's clever, witty, brilliant, sometimes mind-boggling, combative, conciliatory, funny, sometimes silly, sometimes deeply moving, challenging, knowledge-loving - and last but definitely not least - musical contributions.

Thanks for all of those, and thanks for your company throughout this l-o-n-g thread (and others too, of course!)

You know, one day someone really ought to organise an RD.net party. Now there's a thought.

304. Fleabytes

Comment #142895 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:23 am

ClodhopperI have every confidence that Paula has 5K ready. It just needs p[r]oof reading.

OK, right, here I go. *Clears throat*
M'lords, ladies and gentlemen ... Unaccustomed as I am ....

Right, well, that's quite enough of that.

What can I say, guys and gals?

5000 posts.

It's either a miracle, or we all have much, much too much time on our hands.

By the way, I would like to clear up one area of persistent misunderstanding on this thread. The correct beverage with which to celebrate P5K is not coffee, not Ribena (not even cold Ribena, let alone hot - ugh), not beer, not coca-cola, not whisky, not even (and I'm sorry, Quetz, but I feel entitled to insist that even a deity give way to me on this auspicious occasion) tea.

The correct celebratory drink is a beautiful, curvacious glass of Remy Martin. Cheers!

305. Fleabytes

Comment #142877 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:01 am

SG: I notice an outraged character on FCOS forum (AKA the RD.net annexe....)

Yes, 'fraid so. I have submitted a response and am just waiting for it to get through moderation.

I'd already read this person's post a page or so back when a few people here were commenting on the difficulty of getting people to drop unfounded beliefs that they are emotionally wedded to - and I allowed myself a wry smile.

I have no problem at all with people disliking atheists' views, or with people thinking atheists have got it completely wrong. They can feel that way and keep their feelings to themselves, or they can feel that way and do their level best to show WHY atheists' views are so wrong in their view. Either of those is fine by me.

But to make the leap from "I don't like Richard Dawkins' views" to "so his Inverness event must have been rigged and censored" is really quite unacceptable to anyone who's responding with their brain rather than their emotions.

But this is the key issue, as so many people have been saying here of late: religion is a deeply emotional phenomenon, and it isn't experienced through the medium of rational thought.

On the FCOS forum I have explained very clearly how the event was organised and how it's going to work. I've explained that it would be impossible to turn people away on the basis of their religious beliefs, even if anyone had wanted to; and that no one will have any way of knowing what the questioners in the audience are planning to say before they say it. I have also explained that it was UHI who decided that a debate would be the wrong thing for them, and why an interview - even with a fellow atheist! - can never offer as much scope for one-sidedness as a lecture.

They are hearing this straight from the horse's mouth, as it were - I have, after all, been involved in the arrangements (well, not the real nitty-gritty stuff, such as the ticket-booking arrangements, obviously!) and so I really do know what went on; and, being part of the event itself, I really do know what the intentions for it are!

Yet even hearing from someone who has been actively involved in the arrangements has not been enough to shift some people's sense (well, one person's, at least) that there simply MUST be more to it than that.

This person does not seem able to conceive the idea that a person can be an atheist without necessarily also being devious, dishonest and conspiratorial. Or perhaps she simply NEEDS to see atheists in that light. Perhaps she NEEDS the boxes labelled "Go[o]d" and "[D]evil". Perhaps she NEEDS the world to be that simple and is terrified of opening her mind to the thought that it might not be, because then everything else she NEEDS to believe would unravel as a result.

My explanations are proving ineffective because they are being repelled by the mental equivalent of a reinforced concrete shutter, and there is no chance that they're going to be allowed through.

I post this here, not to make fun of the person on the FCOS forum, but because it's a phenomenon we encounter a lot, one way or another.

What is the right response? Well, I firmly believe that nothing we can say will make the slightest difference to someone who is adamant that everything we say is, by definition, all lies. But I still think it's worth TRYING, because on a forum like this, or the FCOS one, it's not JUST our immediate correspondent who will be reading.

On the FCOS forum I will never convince this particular correspondent that she's getting herself hot and bothered about nothing. But there will presumably be others who are less rigid in their responses, who WILL read my explanations and WILL see the truth of them. At least, I live in hope.

306. Fleabytes

Comment #142828 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 6:05 am

43 to go....

I'm not sure that hitting the Big 5K is going to be quite the big deal it's being cracked up to be if the last 50 posts just consist of a countdown!

So here's a serious question for you:

Er, no, sorry, can't think of one.

:-)

307. Fleabytes

Comment #142749 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 4:38 am

Clodhopper: It is possible the RDnet software may not be capable of 'recognising' 100 pages as possible whereupon the entire internet might collapse.

Ah yes. That'll be the P5K Bug. Beware: aeroplanes may fall out of the sky too. ;-)

308. Fleabytes

Comment #142712 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 3:34 am

Cartomancer: Carry on gentlemen, as you were.

"Gentlemen"????? Do I look like a gentleman?????? I'd stay off the Coca-Colas for a while if I were you, Cartomancer. They seem to have a decidedly lowering effect on your consciousness!

309. Two More Fleas

Comment #142531 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Room101: Great. 2 new fleas. Paula - you're on the clock ;o)

Aaaaaarrrrgghghghghghghgghhghhhhgh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I've suffered enough, truly!

Seriously, that's over 20 fleas now. It seems that pesky God Delusion takes an awful lot of refuting. 20 flea books and STILL the Christians feel the need to keep kicking it: so despite all the fleas to date, they clearly don't think Richard's arguments have been defeated!

Now, here's a thought. Since God has already revealed himself definitively and inerrantly in the Bible, why don't they just refer us to that instead of writing more books that, by their own reasoning, can't possibly be as good as the one God wrote? Perhaps they think God needs a helping hand? An interpreter? A good editor? They don't seem to have a very high opinion of God or his book when it really comes to it, do they?

310. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142474 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm

3D Science News had also shot the lecture but it turns out neither Dr. Dawkins or the folks at RDF want it posted. So we won't be posting it. Probably because they will post their own version and would like some control over the craziness that is the internet.

I've been looking out for these videos on this site too, but I guess they're holding back for now since they won't want to spoil the fun for anyone planning to attend one of the later lectures in the tour. So I suspect we're going to have to be patient for a little bit longer ...

311. Fleabytes

Comment #142454 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 2:09 pm

MLearnedFriend: That's disappointing. It seems a given on this thread that Archaeological evidence shows the Bible narrative is false.

I think it's more a question of very significant biblical narratives not being supported by archaeological evidence when, if they were true, you would expect them to be. The issue of the Israelites and the 40 years in the desert, for instance.

A tribe of a significant size wandering across the desert for 40 years could be expected to have left very considerable archaeological evidence of the fact, but there have been numerous extensive archaeological digs and they simply haven't found anything that might point that way. Literally nothing. Even religious archaeologists have acknowledged this. And it's not because such evidence could not be found if it were there, as we know from the evidence of far smaller and much earlier groups of hunter-gatherers around the world.

Does this prove that the Exodus story never happened? Not absolutely, no. But when a story, if true, can be reasonably expected to have left archaeological traces, and when absolutely no such traces can be found, despite really intensive searching, including by people who WANT the story to be true - then at the very least we have good grounds to doubt it.

312. Fleabytes

Comment #142427 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 1:25 pm

MLearnedFriend: In response to your question. The general point I was making was that an accumulation of less-specific predictions was valid in earning trust as effectively as (if not more convincing) than a single very specific prediction. As epeeist says (pardon the paraphrase) something too perfect makes us suspicious.

That's ok, it doesn't have to be a perfect prediction. I'd still be interested to see, say, 3 or 4 of the less specific predictions that you feel, taken together, justify your faith in the predictive power of the Bible overall.

Paula, now you realise that you have ruined my credibility by being nice to me!

Huh. What do you suppose it's done to mine? ;-)

313. Fleabytes

Comment #142417 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Whatthe...: Surely the above quote is one of the most comical that has been posted on this site. Mr Sands would have us believe that moral values are relative. Yet in his very next line he proceeds to make an appeal to what he regards as a self-evidently objective moral value "you CAN'T just define something as an absolute". If Mr Sands was to be consistent he would have to believe that David CAN define anything the way he wants for, after all, all moral values are relative.

There is a difference between "can" and "may". Morality is all about "may", not "can".

314. Fleabytes

Comment #142344 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 11:01 am

Steve Zara: Paula:
You patience and stamina are astonishing.
Just thought that needed saying at this point.

Thank you, Steve, from an increasingly IMpatient and weary Paula! I have quite deliberately chosen not to engage in arguments with DR on his religious views: I had enough of that when reading his book and writing my review; my views have been expressed at length in my article; and I don't see the point of regurgitating them just because he regurgitates his.

I will NOT ignore deliberate distortions of fact, however. Well, even that's not true - I'm conscious of having ignored quite a few, but I have my limits.

315. Fleabytes

Comment #142334 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 10:44 am

4651. Comment #142103 by clearthinker on March 12, 2008 at 2:38 am

Note the leap there from the UNIVERSE being pitilessly indifferent, to ATHEISTS being pitilessly indifferent.

If you do notice it, you are noticing something that is not there. I never said that.

I can only think, David, that you are depending on readers not being able to find the source of the quotes you take from my review and therefore not being able to check your denials. This is what I wrote:

David Robertson doesn't like the look of the universe described by Dawkins. He quotes from The Blind Watchmaker: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" â€" but then twists that description to write: "That then, is the atheist basis of morality â€" no justice, no rhyme nor reason, no purpose, no evil, no good, just blind, pitiless indifference."

Note the leap there from the UNIVERSE being pitilessly indifferent, to ATHEISTS being pitilessly indifferent.

Now you are claiming that you don't make such a leap, but it is right in front of all our eyes. You go on to say

"it does not seem much of a morality. It is still primarily focused on the Selfish Gene. It is all about me, me and mine.

It is clear from this that you are talking about ATHEISTS and not the universe.

316. Fleabytes

Comment #142331 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 10:36 am

Clearthinker: Incidentally RD was never given the option of asking someone else to write for our magazine. The arrogance of asking someone to write a piece for a magazine which is not theirs, and which they were not asked to do is breathtaking. And he was offered an indefinite time limit when it became clear that 1,000 words was too much too soon. And he was given an assurance that his words would not be edited. It was RDs right to choose not to write it. It was not his right to ask someone else to write it for him.

David, you are clearly quite determined to see everything anyone at RD.net does in the worst possible light. Rather than simply saying "No", the desire was to say (and this is the actual email):

>> Dear David,
I am afraid that Richard has too many other deadlines to be able to do a thorough job by the end of this month. We do however have someone we
could recommend to write such a review if you so desire.

Note the "if you so desire". It was offered as an option, not a fait accompli. It is also hard to see how the option could have been honestly offered, had they not already checked that I (in this case) would be willing to do it.

You are making ridiculously heavy weather out of all this and making yourself look both silly and vindictive in the process. Not that there's anything new there, but is this really the effect you are aiming for?

317. Fleabytes

Comment #142325 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 10:26 am

Clearthinker: They ignore the fact that I was commenting on Paulas statement that atheism is de facto secular, humanist, rational and democratic.

What I actually wrote was:

Is Robertson really unable to distinguish between boorish thugs who are driven by a totalitarian ideology that leads them to create an ersatz religion based on a virtually "divine" leader, and a movement that is trying to create a world based on secular, humanist, rational, democratic values? Each of those four adjectives is important, and each one of them marks and extends the gulf between the goals of the "New Atheist movement" (always supposing there really is such a thing) and those of the self-idolizing, inhumane, insane and anti-democratic monsters with whom Robertson and other theists are so desperate to associate us.

There is no suggestion that atheism is de facto anything. Of course it isn't. There will be atheists who are none of the above. There will be theists who are none of the above. However, it is impossible to read the works of the Four Horsemen (the people behind the "movement", such as it is) without getting a strong sense that they are rooted in "secular, humanist, rational, democratic values".

318. Fleabytes

Comment #141922 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 11:48 am

SG: Hey! Just notice you got a posting on the FCOS web site. Cant see how they could argue with the information you give there

Thanks. It was simply a question of setting the record straight. Arguing over views is one thing. Misrepresenting facts is quite another.

319. Fleabytes

Comment #141893 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 10:34 am

Quetz: I haven't yet noticed her giving many examples about precisely HOW this censorship will be going on. Funny, that.

Yes, it would be intriguing to know how that might work. Presumably either Eden Court or UHI or Richard himself would have to have a Black List with the names of every Christian in the country on it. And that information would have to be held in a pretty big database that was also superfast, so that when people phoned Eden Court Box Office to book their tickets, the staff there would know in a lightning flash whether the caller was on the banned list or not.

This cunning plan is slightly undermined by the fact that I was present when a friend of mine phoned to book her ticket the other day, and she was told right at the start of the phone call that yes, she could have a ticket, and she was only asked her name towards the end. Maybe the cunning atheist technology is even cleverer than we'd thought.

Of course, there is the other side to the question too, which is why on Earth would anyone want to do any such thing? Why would UHI, who simply wanted to fill a large auditorium, turn certain potential attendees away? Why would they comply with a request from Richard to do so, EVEN IF such a request were ever made - which OF COURSE it wasn't. Why would Richard want an audience full of atheists? He is more than able to handle questions and challenges from Christians, as video after video after video shows, and not only that, he actively wants those questions and challenges to be made SO THAT HE CAN REBUT THEM.

The whole thing is really quite ridiculous.

320. Fleabytes

Comment #141837 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 9:27 am

Steve Zara: To be blunt, it is lying.

To be fair, I wouldn't go quite that far on the "commissioning" issue, since David can't be expected to know what did and did not go on behind the scenes. Not that this lack of knowledge has prevented him from asserting as fact what is simply his assumption.

However, no such excuse can be found for his renewed allegation that the Fleabytes article was "not even highlighted on [Richard Dawkins'] own website", since this ridiculous claim has not only been dealt with numerous times here, but David himself has publicly acknowledged that he was wrong on this point:

14. FleabytesComment #134829 by clearthinker on February 28, 2008 at 8:41 am Paula, I own you an apology. Your article is on the front page. I had been away from this site for so long that I did not realise that this was now how it worked. I was wrong. Apologies.

How can anyone with even a smidgeon of integrity post this apology on our website on 28 February, and then repeat the allegation on HIS website on 11 March?

By the way, on a different subject (Richard's Inverness event), I see that a poster on David's Free Church forum is repeating as fact what David himself attempted to insinuate on this thread (and the poster in question says she has read this thread, so there's not much doubting where she got this idea from, is there?):

Censoring of those who attend/wish to attend such a lecture/discussion staged in the name of UHI also begs many questions.

Since I have explained very clearly to David on this thread that there is absolutely no question of any such censorship taking place, it would be nice to think that he would post a message on his forum correcting this entirely false statement. I'm obviously not holding my breath though.

321. Fleabytes

Comment #141758 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 7:05 am

Oh look, he's still at it:

David Robertson on http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.120
5. As regards my question - I already explained that on the website. The questions still stands - why did Dawkins commission this 30,000 word article and yet not even highlight it on his own website?

(My emphasis.) What are we to make of someone who makes a false claim, is corrected, apparently accepts the correction and apologises - and then repeats what he now knows is a FALSE claim elsewhere? Honest? Reasonable? Truth-seeking? Trustworthy? I think not. Devious? Despicable? These are more like it, I think.

By the way, no one, let alone Richard Dawkins himself, commissioned me to write a 30,000 word article for the website. You asked Richard to write a review for the Monthly Record. He said no, but asked someone at RD.net to contact me to see if I'd be willing to do it instead. Given the short time scale you'd given, I had already started on the project when RD.net heard that you had found an atheist-turned-Christian to do it instead. At that time, RD.net suggested I could still do a review for the website if I wanted.

And there were no stipulations of any kind, either regarding content, or the books I chose, or word count, or anything else. "Commission" is a totally overblown word to use to describe such an arrangement.

322. Fleabytes

Comment #141742 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 6:44 am

Clearthinker: The posts on the threads that are entitled Interact with David Robertson are precisely that. I moderate those ones. Furthermore we do not allow anonymous posts. I assumed that ‘J’ was Jonathan. Until J identifies himself the post will not be posted.

Strange. There are other posts from "J" on your forum. Seems anonymity wasn't such a problem for those but then, they weren't particularly critical of you. Ah well.

Despite the forum being called "Interact with David Robertson" it is shown on your website as having more than one moderator:

Interact with David Robertson
Interact with David Robertson
Moderators: David M, DAR, Gordy M, Alex MacDonald, dowboy, moderators

I thought maybe you just used a standard list of moderators on all your fora, but no:

The Monthly Record
For discussion of issues raised in The Monthly Record. Items relating to the editorial style will not be published, but should rather be addressed to the Editor.
Moderators: Gordy M, dowboy

Now, I really don't care whether you are the only moderator or whether there are 5 of you as your website says. Either way, SOMEONE clearly approved the post in the first instance, and SOMEONE clearly removed it again afterwards. There must have been a reason, and the anonymity one doesn't work for the reason given above.

By the way, if you prepare your posts in Wordpad rather than a word processor, you won't get all the odd symbols.

323. Fleabytes

Comment #141684 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 5:01 am

MLearnedFriend: If I do this consistently then more and more people will start reading my new national newspaper column and winning big on my advice. I have earnt their trust

MLearnedFriend, first I'd just like to see how very refreshing it is to see a Christian trying to engage in genuine discussion here. Thank you for that.

To pick up on your point in your post above, I'd like to know which bits of the bible you see as being the equivalent of the analogy you use. In other words, which prophesies in the bible "have earned your trust" in the rest of it, and why?

324. Fleabytes

Comment #141534 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm

MPhil: No hard feelings, okay?

None whatsoever! :-)

325. Fleabytes

Comment #141522 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Are we in the business of silently worshipping here?

No, of course not. But to quibble publicly about a single, solitary syllable in a piece as damn near perfect as Cartomancer has produced here seems at best misjudged.

326. Fleabytes

Comment #141518 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Steve Zara: When in the presence of genius, there is a time to nit-pick, and time to stand back and admire. I support the second approach.

Exactly. Enough already.

327. Fleabytes

Comment #141502 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Cartomancer: Just brilliant. Both posts. I'm speechless - and THAT doesn't happen very often!

328. Fleabytes

Comment #141102 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 3:14 am

Quetz: where is Clearthinker when you need him? :)

When's that, then? ;-)

329. Fleabytes

Comment #141023 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Richard, it's lovely - thank you SO much. You are a seriously talented man. xxxxxxxx

PS. I just love the visual images you assign to your compositions too. Of course I'm very taken with the dying fleas on mine, but the one that goes with Wee Flea's is just brilliant!

330. Fleabytes

Comment #140943 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 6:49 am

Steve Z: Your insight regarding these matter is amazing, I have to say.

I'm not sure it takes much insight: DR makes the association of atheism and the devil pretty clear in his book, I would say, as I think the bit I've quoted above shows. It's clear from his book that he really does see the universe in terms of a cosmic battle between Good and Evil, God and the Devil.

Consider, too, the comments he made in his "Welcoming Remarks" to the November 2007 edition of the Free Church magazine, The Monthly Record, which featured responses to the "New Atheist" books:

The theme for this month is The New Atheism. I realise that many people will think it is pointless to consider this â€" partly because most people claim to be agnostics and not atheists, and partly because most of us have enough difficulty living the Christian life without having to stare into the black hole of atheism. Yet the simple fact is that books on God, the Bible and Jesus are the new publishing phenomena in our society. Many of our neighbours, friends and workmates are reading
these books, and while many may not be theoretical atheists, most are functional atheists, living as if there were no God.
This renewed public interest in religion gives us a tremendous opportunity to present the Good News of Jesus Christ. Please read through all this, pray and consider how you can make the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

331. Fleabytes

Comment #140902 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 4:37 am

Verylee: Maybe some get off on the titillation of dialogue with and baiting the devil's playmate

I think you may be on to something here. David Robertson has made it clear that he sees the growth of atheism as part of the "evil times" we live in, and in his book he actually makes a connection between Richard Dawkins and the devil!

You want to replace God with humanity. You want us as the Higher Consciousness, to become like God. I believe that a long time ago there was someone else who once offered humanity the key to all knowledge. We fell for it then and have ever since been paying the price. I pray that we will not fall for that one again.

Robertson and his acolytes see attacks on atheists as being attacks on the devil. This again explains the way they go about it. You wouldn't, after all, waste time being courteous to the devil; you wouldn't attempt to identify points of consensus before tackling the issues of contention; you wouldn't even feel the need to argue with him or convince him he was wrong; you certainly wouldn't worry whether your methods were personally hurtful or offensive. You'd just feel the need to destroy him, using whatever method you can think of. Nor would you need to feel remotely bad if some of those methods were on the dirty side, if they involved lies and misrepresentations and malicious insinuations, for instance. Such scruples would be absurd under the circumstances!

332. Fleabytes

Comment #140897 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 4:22 am

Geoff: there are probably as many different motivations as there are theists

I'm sure that's true. I'm sure there are also many genuine reasons why a theist might want to post here: if they felt we'd missed the point, for instance, that we were looking at Christianity in the wrong light and were rejecting it as a result of that erroneous perspective. It wouldn't then necessarily be that they were trying to convert us as such, just prompt us to see the question differently. (An analogy might be the way we'd respond to a theist who rejected evolution by natural selection because complexity couldn't arise by chance.)

Many Christians (and I'm limiting myself to Christians here because it's so rare for someone from any other religion to show up), particularly on another atheist forum I take part in, seem to assume we don't know anything about Christianity, and are quite taken aback to realise that quite a lot of us know a great deal about it from years of personal experience.

Other motivations are decidedly less acceptable: some Christians undoubtedly just want to needle and goad, and prick what they see as our smug arrogance. With what end in view? It can only be to make themselves feel better, since it is inconceivable that such an approach might have any more constructive outcome.

As for the ones who have perhaps prompted Steve's question, I am led by the timing of their arrival and their style of interaction with us to suspect both Hello and Whatthe of being members of the David Robertson Reinforcements, who have waded in to give his posts an echo.

What is very notable in such posts is the complete lack of willingness to engage in anything resembling real discussion. They post question after question that we are presumably meant to be unable to answer, but rather than engaging with the answers we give, they simply post new ones. Or vanish, of course.

And rule number one for this kind of visiting theist seems to be "Never answer any of the atheists' questions". Which seems very bizarre and further strengthens my conviction that their aim is simply to needle rather than to engage with us in any meaningful way. After all, if you wanted to convince someone that they were wrong and you were right, it's very hard to imagine how you could possibly achieve that without answering their questions, isn't it? Imagine a teacher who refused to answer his pupil's questions. Or a salesperson who just heaped abuse on the product you're using now, but refused to tell you anything about the one she wants you to replace it with.

I actually asked Hello a week or so ago what his purpose was in posting here. I also asked him (I think it was him - it may have been one of the others, they seem pretty interchangeable) to tell us exactly what he believed, and what evidence he based that belief on. Has he done either of those things? No, of course not.

One last thought: the books by Robertson and McGrath both sneeringly attempt to convey the impression that atheist arguments crumble the moment a Christian challenges them. It seems perfectly possible to me that some of the less questioning Christians would fall for this and therefore not be remotely prepared for what they find when they get here. This would account both for the low quality of their challenges in the first place, and their rapid retreat when they don't work.

333. Fleabytes

Comment #140796 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Veronad: But still my question hasn't yet been answered. What IS the protocol for having an article posted in this forum, about which members can comment?

I believe you followed the correct procedure by sending it to articles@richarddawkins.net, Veronad.

334. Fleabytes

Comment #140787 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Cartomancer: Hmm... It's certainly an interesting image:

It's not often I collapse into a helpless fit of giggles, but I have to confess that this post has done it to me!

Cartomancer, you're in sparkling form tonight.

335. Fleabytes

Comment #140776 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Cartomancer: Just think of them as big squirrels Paula - quick breeze block to the face and they'll be no trouble...

Are you talking about the Christians or the lions now, Cartomancer?
[/joke]

336. Fleabytes

Comment #140773 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Geoff: But lions have to eat, Paula...

May I just say how relieved I am that you inserted a comma in that sentence, Geoff?

337. Fleabytes

Comment #140767 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Richard M: Steve and Paula preparing to throw Christians and/or their ideas into the nearest waste disposal unit.

When I visited the theatre in Inverness recently as part of the preparations for Richard's event, someone (who shall remain nameless) jokingly said that the orchestra pit between the stage and the audience would be filled with lions on the day.

Steve will be pleased to know that, despite the historical precedents, I felt this would probably be taking the concept of "giving Christians a hard time" a bit far, even by my standards.

338. Fleabytes

Comment #140754 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Steve Z: I think it was just the unqualified phrase that made me uneasy, that is all.

Did you miss the ";-)" at the end? It was a flippant reply to a flippant comment.

But I'm still not sure you can give Christians' ideas a hard time without their feeling that you're giving them a hard time. For them, it boils down to the same thing in the end.

339. Fleabytes

Comment #140748 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Steve Z: You must mean "Christianity" is not picked on hard enough, not "Christians". Unless, of course, you are trying to reveal the kind of inner character Richard M was talking about, to counter your charming avatar... are you going to shock us further?

Well, at the risk of turning a facetious conversation into a serious one for a moment, I find it hard to imagine a way of giving Christianity a hard time that Christians would not experience as giving them a hard time. What is Christianity, anyway, but the beliefs and practices of large numbers of individual Christians?

I actually do stand by my tongue-in-cheek response to SRWB: I'm all for giving Christians a hard time. Not through the kind of persecution they love to imagine at our hands, and not through ad hominems; but purely and simply by actively challenging them about the absurdity of their beliefs. They still don't have a hard enough time because the rest of us still don't challenge them often enough.

340. Fleabytes

Comment #140727 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:49 pm

SRWB: To be more accurate, would we not include Judaism, Islam, and all other deistic religions here as well?

Yes, you're right.

Let's not always just pick on the poor Xians; they have it so hard. ;-)

Nowhere near hard enough, in my book ;-)

341. Fleabytes

Comment #140717 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Geoff: I can provide data that disprove your assertion, if you like...?

No, no need, Geoff. Re-reading Whatthe's post has sufficed to convince me of my error.

342. Fleabytes

Comment #140713 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Diacanu and Irate_Atheist are really a pair of lovely little old ladies who like nothing more than running jumble sales and doing the crossword in Woman's Weekly.

Richard Morgan, I think you might need to make some changes to Diacanu's musical portrait.

343. Fleabytes

Comment #140712 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 11:59 am

Cartomancer: Little old me? Well, you never really thought that Elvis was dead did you?

Well, I never will again, I can promise you that much.

344. Fleabytes

Comment #140706 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 11:52 am

Cartomancer: lovely post, very very funny. But you left someone out. Who is the real Cartomancer? We're all agog. :-)

345. Fleabytes

Comment #140704 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 11:49 am

Richard Morgan: I won't list them here (unless asked, by yourself) - all will be revealed in your musical portrait!

Uh-oh. I am all fear and trepidation! No, I am most definitely not asking. Will I even dare listen to your composition, after that??

PS. I saw your request for assistance on the Crossing the Divide thread and I'm not ignoring it - just doing lots of other things today and don't really have time to work through another thread thoroughly enough to be able to chime in. I'll take a look later or tomorrow, if I can.

346. Fleabytes

Comment #140690 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 10:58 am

Steve Z: I am shocked, I really am :)

Ah, Steve, you surely weren't taken in by this innocent-looking exterior, were you? ;-)

347. Fleabytes

Comment #140673 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 10:05 am

Whatthe..?!: I'm beginning to see how you got your name.

Firstly, quit the David Robertson impersonation and stop referring to atheists as "disciples". The fact that you are using the term entirely inappropriately might be forgivable if you were being witty and/or original; but you're not. This tactic has been used ad nauseam by those who wish to suggest (rather oddly, it must be said) that atheism is another religion and that its arguments therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. If you continue with it we shall know that you actively seek to be both wrong and boring.

So, this is your great explanation, is it? "Everthing which has a beginning has a cause". So hey presto! Your God necessarily didn't have a beginning! QED! Magic!! Wonderful!! Bollocks!!!! Oops, did I just say that? Your problem, Whatthe...?! is that simply producing alleged solutions out of a hat does not make them true. You simply cannot sensibly posit an intelligent being that has always existed, because by everything we actually do know about the universe (and I'm using the word "know" in its real sense of "backed up by evidence", rather than in its religious sense of "Well, I certainly hope this is right because it would be so very convenient and would save me having to actually learn anything") such a being falls into the Impossible category. As ever, of course, if you have anything remotely approaching evidence to support your view that such a being exists, we will be delighted to hear it. But we've been down this particular blind alley before.

A God that had no beginning is necessary for one thing and one thing only: Christianity. It is simply not required for anything else. It doesn't matter which branch of science you look at - biology, chemistry, physics, Earth Science, cosmology, .... - we simply see NOTHING that requires your eternal, uncaused God for its explanation. Sure, there are gaps in our knowledge - but even the Vatican has acknowledged the danger of depending on those as refuges for God. Our knowledge of the universe is growing at an incredible rate and the claim that it all "necessarily" requires an intelligent, uncaused being to explain it is most emphatically NOT borne out by what we see when we explore it. To quote Victor Stenger, "It all looks precisely the way we would expect it to look if there were no God."

Your other problem is that, just because something seems "the height of absurdity" absolutely does not mean it must be untrue. The universe positively teems with things that seem "the height of absurdity", but for all that we have evidence that shows them to be true. Quantum mechanics is the obvious example of this: even Christians would find it hard to come up with greater absurdities than QM apparently represents but, unlike Christianity, predictions based on QM absurdities can be demonstrated to be true and accurate to within infinitessimally small margins of error. But it's not just QM. Evolution struck many people as "the height of absurdity", too, for a long time: but is now supported by more evidence than practically any other scientific theory you care to mention.

So the argument from absurdity is simply the argument from your own scientific ignorance. Every other phenomenon of complex life has been accounted for in terms of the evolution from simple to complex. To suggest that such an explanation cannot account for human consciousness is just your wishful thinking.

And I see that elsewhere in your post you're calling Paul Davies as a witness for your side of the argument. I think you'd be wise to check his views out more carefully before doing so!

348. Fleabytes

Comment #140593 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:46 am

Richard Morgan: You know what I'm finding here on this "soul-less" atheist site?

I'm finding friendship, intellectual exchange,amusing little cat-fights that don't last long, the occasional dick-head, inspiration, encouragement, laughter, compassion, understanding, acceptance, people willing to doubt, to apologise, to ask for forgiveness from time to time, and a great community spirit. You know, people basically pulling in the same direction.
Hey,why am I not missing the religious groups?

You're spot on, Richard. This is a fabulous site - and so very much more than just a forum for debate (though it's that too, and miles better than any other I've seen).

No wonder certain visiting Christians dislike it so much and go to such lengths to malign it.

On which subject, I'm not entirely sure such a person would actually deserve to be the subject of your musical inspirations but I'm secretly (well, probably not so secretly now!) glad that you decided otherwise - that's another great composition you've put online!

349. Fleabytes

Comment #140588 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:34 am

Steve Z: I wonder if we could encourage use of the word "fora" for this? It is far more beautful than "forums".

What a very nice suggestion. The term for both together - i.e. the places where we have our conversations AND the people having them - could then be the Fora and Fauna. I think this would be the very opposite of ugsome.

350. Fleabytes

Comment #140475 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 1:24 pm

And another thing ....

I have just found this on one of the Open University's online conferences. It was written by someone who occasionally posts here too - Magrat Garlick (at least, that's her RD.net name) - and, as is her wont, she encapsulates a powerful argument in just a couple of sentences. Magrat - I hope you don't mind my re-posting it here.

You might be interested on the survey on this website. It was an attempt to ascertain God's stance on same-sex marriage through prayer. Unfortunately, it is not very conclusive, since of the 49 people who received an answer from God, 26 were told that he approved and 23 were told that he disapproved. The only consistent finding of the survey was that not one single person received an answer that conflicted with his or her own personal opinion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_pra1.htm